I have been a good boy recently and curbed my overwhelming desire to take a few correspondents to task, but eventually you get to the point where "a man has to do what a man has to do".
It is my contention that people who object to abortion, endorse the use of marijuana for personal "excitement" and oppose euthanasia are self-serving wallies.
If we look at each question separately, I can only assume that we are talking about the "right to life" fanatics. Why do they have the right to tell anyone whether they have a commanding right over the person who is holding another body within theirs with legal authority?
Let them control their own bodies and religious convictions without any right to dictate to others.
"Yo, mon, let's light this spliff and drift away into a world of personal sanctuary, where we can see the world in rainbow colours and not really know what we are talking about 'cos we is stoned!"
Euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. I can find no connection to abortion or giving birth, although I am sure some ladies have wished for it during the birthing process.
I see (June 23 on TV1) that 1000 of 17,000 doctors are opposed to euthanasia as a result of some idiotic poll of just a few people stupid enough to answer their phones. Just another "anti" poll that showed where the real issue lies.
Okay, time to get personal. I have seen first my father and, later, my mother-in-law eased into meeting their maker. I thanked both doctors involved and, of course, received the enigmatic smile.
My condition means that, when I go, my loved ones can see me gasping for breath as I can no longer get oxygen into my lungs, and thus I suffocate before their very eyes.
Go to hell, you do-gooders; I want to go without unpleasant memories for my loved ones, as I am sure most Kiwis do. Let me go with assistance when I want to go.
President Putin's statement that the liberal ideal is in conflict with the "interests of the overwhelming majority of the population" should serve to focus our political discussion on what action must be taken to ensure future generations enjoy the social liberalism western democracies have and continue to benefit from.
Social liberalism is at the heart of our multicultural society. It allows individual freedom.
It is supported by 89 per cent of New Zealanders, who agree people from different cultures benefit our society. However, such diversity allows self-serving exploitation opportunities that are seized upon to satisfy egotistical desire, exponents of which walk amongst us in our multifarious groups.
Records reveal a litany of self-serving opportunists who beguiled supporters while segmenting them from the rest of the population.
Little neuron activity is required to appeal to a group who share the same opinions.
Ethical leaders with a strong moral compass strive to establish processes to allow respectful relationships between all groups.
How many of the world's political leaders are capable of the intellectual cogitation to form policies that take account of the whole community and environment? It can be done, humans have shown it is possible to live a deferential existence.
Groups who lived with a level of respect that made it unnecessary to encircle their land with a physical barrier. Respect that allowed over 500 nations living on one continent to co-operate across cultural and geographic boundaries without the use of physical coercion or, as a last resort, war?
The intellectual musculature required to firstly forge and then maintain stability across tens of thousands of years is what is once again needed on a global scale.
Our future generations deserve the right to enjoy individual freedom as well as physical and emotional wellbeing throughout their lives.
We must act to cull political thinking that looks to segment society while pandering to an egotist's desire. Without condemnation our actions can be interpreted as indifference and therefore the standard we accept.
•Send your letters to: Letters, Whanganui Chronicle, 100 Guyton St, PO Box 433, Whanganui 4500 or email email@example.com